Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 Next
Comments 36051 to 36100:
-
Rob Painting at 20:03 PM on 24 May 2014John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see
Dana writes a blog for The Guardian and copies his posts here at SkS. I expect this largely for the audience there.
Localis - I operate on the assumption that contrarians are impervious to any factual information that contradicts their preconceived notions. Most here as SkS do so as well. Afterall, you cannot reason a person out of a postion they never reason themselves into in the first place.
What I'm getting at is that contrarians aren't our target audience. It's probably the same at The Guardian, although they do get infested with climate trolls.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:00 PM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
"Tom, Per my source Charctic, considerably less melting for this most recent 8 days (251,000 sq km) vs the same ~week in 1979 (415,000 sq km) could cause ponderance to some."
That really is the most ridiculous cherry pick I have ever seen on a climate blog. A whole eight days, wow that can't possibly be just weather noise!!!
-
chriskoz at 18:15 PM on 24 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Klapper@43,
You're still denying to acknowledge my assertion when supported by my citing of (Xu 2001) because you did not even bother to acknowledge/address my argument. And you're continuing to cherry pick the "boxes" confirming your preconceived idea. That falls IMO into the "excessive repetition" category of policy violations, therefore I would not be surprised if your comment was deleted (and my response herein can also be deleted). All I can conclude (after Tom@38) is that it is waste of time continuing the discussion with you
-
localis at 17:48 PM on 24 May 2014John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see
This video might have some effect on the illiterate but won't do anything to change the denier's attitude as they already are aware of the science but prefer (for whatever reason) to contradict it. Posting it again doesn't re-inforce its message.
-
cesium62 at 16:15 PM on 24 May 2014It's not urgent
I'd like to see the Basic article expanded in various ways. This article doesn't mention a time frame as to when we might see costly effects. Sounds like we have at least hundreds of years if not thousands before Miami sinks beneath the waves.
The article doesn't discuss any problems other than sea level rise. Will climate change leave agriculture unphased and as productive or more productive than it currently is? If production drops, how log before we might see climate based drops in production?
Over time frames like hundreds of years geo-engineering becomes more feasible. And over longer time frames, smaller yearly investments can be made.
-
DSL at 15:52 PM on 24 May 2014Arctic sea ice has recovered
jetfuel, so what if anything is up from year to year? In the 35 years of the satellite record for ASI area, area at minimum exceeded the previous year's minimum fifteen times, yet the overall trend is strongly negative. If this year's minimum drops below last year's, what will it tell us? Very little. Just as 2013's increase at minimum over 2012 told us very little. As for multiyear ice, there's so little left--like volume--that variance can be played up into quite a rhetorical pudding: "multi-year ice has doubled over last year!"
Moderator Response:Please do not respond to any future comments by jetfuel until a Moderator has had a chance to ascertain whether or not it is in full compliance with the SkS Comments Policy. From here on out, jetfuel is on a very short leash. His/her shennanigans will be stopped one way or another.
-
jetfuel at 15:44 PM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
DSL, it seems ice loss outpaces most projections. Is only getting down to 4.6-5.3 in 2014 unreasonable at this point? Multiyear ice is up from 2013, but ice area trails 2013 for this day.
-
DSL at 12:57 PM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
jetfuel, are you aware of the model projections for Arctic sea ice loss?
Take your answer here.
-
jetfuel at 11:48 AM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
Tom, Per my source Charctic, considerably less melting for this most recent 8 days (251,000 sq km) vs the same ~week in 1979 (415,000 sq km) could cause ponderance to some. Thus, in warmer Arctic Ocean water, from a thinner ice pack, and with 401 ppm CO2, ice is dissapearing slower than way back when everything had warmed less. I was just noting that the ice area @time lines were converging over that short time. Yes, that is a general trend for most years. At least that part is behaving normal this year.
Unfortunately, yes, there is 7% less ice than in 1979. Actually 2014 = 2010 amt this day.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is a/ offtopic, b/ cherry-picking - and suspiciously like trolling. If you wish to discuss science then do so in scientific way. If you are here to amuse yourself with outrageous arguments and trolling, then please find somewhere else for your entertainment. Further offtopic comments will be deleted.
-
DSL at 11:01 AM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
Ahhh, but Tom, jetfuel said "area."
CT SIA for the current date is 88.23% of 1979's value and 103.15% of the satellite period record minimum for the date (2011).
And just to be complete, jetfuel, PIOMAS volume for the last day in April (PIOMAS comes out monthly) was 69.65% of its value for 1979 and 100.5% of the record minimum (2011), after having spent much of March and April 2014 as the record minimum. -
michael sweet at 11:01 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Thorconstr,
The normal business in Science is for you to do the experiment over since it is you who challenges the result. Since the result is backed by calculations and is the result I expected, it is a waste of my time to replicate a result that is exactly what I expected it to be.
Skeptics have this expectation that any crazy idea they get has to be countered by scientists doing real experiments. The onus is on the skeptics to actually do the experiment and proove that the accepted result is in error.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
MA Rodger @41, the current (day 142) sea ice extent according to Charctic is 12.592 million km^2. That is 92.69% (or 93% after rounding) of the 1979 figure of 13.585 million km^2, but only 90.714% of 13.881 million km^2 on day 142 of 1985, ie, he actual record year for day 142 values. 1979 was the record year for maximum ice extent, but not for maximum May extent.
Jetfuel is very careful to not tell us that the current sea ice extent is only 97.794% of the equivalent 2007 sea ice extent (12.876 million km^2), and 97.794% of the equivalent 2012 extent (12.876 million km^2). That there is currently less ice than in the former, and current record September minimum ice years, and that the former record minimim extent ice had more ice in day 142 than did the current record shows how pointless are the statistics jetfuel is quoting.
As jetfuel well knows if he has perused charctic, in May sea ice extent variability is at a minimum. At this time of year, there is the least difference between all years so that current values of sea ice extent provide almost no predictive value in predicing eventual September minimums. It also means that at this time of year there is a maximum ice melt for years with the maximum March extent relative to other years - and it means nothing in terms of determining how low the summer sea ice extent will be.
This repeat and greatly extended series of such posts by jetfuel were he takes data out of context and milks "skeptical" conclusions from them regardless of their actual import (or lack of import). He does it so consistently, and persistently in the face of correction that he is (IMO) not entitled to the presumption of honest mistakes, and I am astonished that his record of misinformation, sloganeering and repetition has not yet resulted in his loosing the privilege of posting at SkS.
Returning to the topic, polar bears are adapted to hunting on ice packs. That makes them poor hunters on land, so that summer months are lean month with many polar bears near starvation by the end of summer. The most immediate threat from global warming to polar bears is from the extended duration before they can return to the ice after summer due to the more extensive summer sea ice melts. The slightly reduced sea ice extents in March are of almost no consequence for polar bears, and also have no bearing on the critical summer sea ice extent values.
Moderator Response:Please do not respond to any future comments by jetfuel until a Moderator has had a chance to ascertain whether or not it is in full compliance with the SkS Comments Policy. From here on out, jetfuel is on a very short leash. His/her shennanigans will be stopped one way or another.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:17 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr... Just remember, this experiment here is using ice in salt water, not fresh water. The video you linked to is not using salt water.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:52 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr... Perhaps you should replicate the experiment with the modifications you're suggesting and see whether you get similar results. That would be the normal response.
-
thorconstr at 07:03 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Michael, Why don't you do the experiment again with a piece of ice that floats without leaning on the side of the jar? Ice on land such as Antarctica and Greenland would affect sea level just as the friction of the ice leaning on the jar showed a wrong conclusion. Put a piece of ice in the jar, fill it completely to the top with water as in the you tube video and watch the outcome.
-
jenna at 06:54 AM on 24 May 2014John Oliver's viral video: the best climate debate you'll ever see
I'm pretty sure this video was already posts here at SKS on May 13th, no?
Jen
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:53 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Just this morning I listened to this podcast of Chris Mooney interviewing Dr. Richard Alley. Really interesting discussion that brought out a number of points I was unaware of. One being that the gravitational mass of these major ice sheets also plays a role in sea level rise. The ice sheet are so massive that the exert gravitational pull on the ocean around them, thus as they melt, the reduced gravitational pull results in ocean's mass being more evenly distributed around the globe. Wow!
The other one was, the summits of the major ice sheets are currently fairly high in altitude. As the ice sheets melt the lower altitude of the summits will mean they are in warmer air and thus have an amplified melting effect.
-
michael sweet at 05:36 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Thorconstr,
The ice leaning on the side of the jar is only supported sideways, not up and down. It has no effect on the experiment. The setup of the jar makes the experiment easy to see.
When I search "Greenland ice sheet sea level rise" the first hit is Wikipedia which states that the melting of Greenland will result in a 24 foot rise in sea level. Since I live in Florida that seems like a lot to me since over half the state (home to over 10 millionj people) would be inundated. Climate Central only goes up to 10 feet of rise so their maps are much too conservative. I do not know anyone who thinks this "affect would be small". Perhaps if you look up data before you post you will seem less uninformed. This thread is better for Greenland discussion
Antarctia is melting from below due to the increase in ocean temperatures. The fact that the average temperature is -30C does not matter when the bottom of the ice is melting due to heat in the ocean. You are spending too much time reading skeptic blogs that do not know what the facts of the matter are. This thread is good for Antarctia.
-
wili at 03:55 AM on 24 May 2014Looking for connections
Others have already addressed quite well most of aust's points, but I would just add that Peter Ward has proposed a "Medea Principle" (or Hypothesis) to set against the Gaia--The earth does foster its 'children' for a while...until it suddently flies into a rage periodically and slaughters (almost) all of them in a mass extinction event. LINK
We are now in the midst of just such an event, and it is getting worse.
Note also that even with less than one degree C of warming above pre-industrial levels, we are already seeing non-linear, permanent changes kick in--Arctic sea ice will be essentially gone in the next few years or (at most) the next very few decades, and won't return any time soon no matter what happens. And now we hear that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is simillarly doomed, though that collapse will take a bit longer to play out.
Unfortunately, the 'negative' damping feedbacks to raising of CO2 levels are both smaller in number and much slower than the positive feedbacks--think weathering of mountain ranges. The speed of our carbon 'forcing' is breathtakingly fast by any geological comparison.
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed excessively long url that was breaking page format. In the future, please use the link tool located on the second tab of the comments box to hotlink your urls. Thx.
-
wili at 03:42 AM on 24 May 2014Looking for connections
I would like to join saileshrao in praising Glenn Tamblyn's insightful and articulate wording which I will reproduce more fully:
"
While in principal we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, there is a strong case to be made that our degreeof responsibility is moderated/modulated hugely by how witting or unwitting we were when we took those actions.Conversely, if we were unwitting and then gained understanding later, how we respond to that discovery is of paramount importance. Discovering that we have unwittingly caused harm is sad and disturbing.
Discovering that we have unwittingly caused harm and then continuing to do so is immoral."
This is so well put (and something I have been trying to articulate but failed to do with this level of precision) that I hope GT will not mind if I use it elsewhere, properly cited, of course. I would add, though, that ignorance of consequences should not completely let us off the hook, since any marginally reflective soul should be able to be aware of his/her own ignorance and apply the precautionary principle accordingly.
-
MA Rodger at 03:30 AM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
Not being minded to examine a source used to spread nonsense, I will but point out that the freezy season of 2013/4 left Arctic SIA at 13.5Mkm^2, which is 89.5% of the equivilant 1978/9 figure. The latest SIA is 10.8Mkm^2, which is 89.2% of the equivilant 1979 figure.
Also, unlike Yogi Bear, the term polar bear is neither capitalised nor the subject of fictional commentary; at least, not on this website.
Moderator Response:[JH] I belive that you have directed this coment to jetfuel.
In the future, please identify the comenter (by name) and coment (by number) that you are respo ding to.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:36 AM on 24 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
chriskoz @7, I've run the data from NOAA. Doing so for all 12 month intervals in the global monthly mean data shows the interval March 2013-March 2014 to rank 33rd among all twelve month intervals in the record since Jan 1980. The highest ranked 12 month interval is Sept 1997 - Sept 1998, with a global increase of 3.6 ppmv. For Mauna Loa, April 2013 - April 2014 ranks 15th among all twelve month intervals since records began in March, 1958. Sept 1997 - Sept 1998 is again shows the highest twelve month increase in CO2 concentration, with an increase of 3.7 ppmv.
From this it is evident that the author compared the most rescent Mauna Loa 12 month increase with the global Calendar year increases, which is not a like for like comparison. The result is that most, if not all the claimed records in the OP are mistated. The most recent 12 month increases are not even records for non El Nino years, with larger 12 month increases from Feb 1012 to Feb 2013 for Mauna Loa (3.2 ppmv), and from July 2012 to July 2013 for the Global record (3.47 ppmv). The later is a non-El Nino record, as it ranks second among all intervals. I am not certain of the non-El Nino record for Mauna Loa.
Evidently the first few paragraphs of the OP requires a significant rewrite to correct these errors, which is a shame because it is an otherwise informative article.
-
Composer99 at 02:22 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr:
The impression I get is that you are not reading the OP, or my comment, very carefully, if at all.
The OP notes:
Now let us consider a slightly different experiment. It’s again water with some ice in it, but now the water is salty (like the real ocean). The blue color has no effect on the experiment, but it shows the ice cube in the water more clearly.
It took quite a time to melt all ice but finally it was done and the result is clear: The water level is higher!
Doesn’t that contradict Archimedes’ principle?
According to Noerdlinger and Brower (2007) it doesn’t because the principle refers to weight and not volume. [...][Emphasis mine.]
When the ice melts then this is a kind of freshening of the ocean and the overall salinity is lowered. The lower salinity, the lower density and the larger volume.
The melting of sea ice therefore doesn’t increase the mass but it increases the volume and therefore causes the water level to rise. After Noerdlinger’s and Brower’s calculations the volume of the meltwater is about 2.6% larger than the displaced sea water.
Even though the OP explicitly notes Archimedes' principle, and explicitly notes that the principle does not take into account changes in salinity and temperature in ocean water from melting ice, and explicitly provides a reference discussing the phenomenon, you ignore it all and state:
See Archimedes principal as well.
as if somehow, despite having discussed the principle, the OP is somehow ignorant of it.
You yourself specified that the Antarctic/Greenland ice was land ice:
Ice on land such as Antarctica and Greenland would affect sea level
As such your following comments were off topic. If you now wish to bring up floating ice shelves, that is indeed topical, although I do not see how bringing up floating ice shelves lends any support to your claims.
-
Lionel A at 01:29 AM on 24 May 2014Looking for connections
That Real Climate link in my #14 above now goes to a very different looking page, this is the one I viewed (unless it is substituted again) Debate over the Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis. I have not previously seen this behaviour from RC.
-
jetfuel at 00:22 AM on 24 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
At least Polar Bear adaptation is being relieved so far this year. On 2014 being a meltdown year in the Arctic year, there is now 93% as much ice area (May 21st) as record cold year 1979 ice area level. 2014 Peak March to late May melted area is substantially less than in same period of 1979. source: Charctic ISI.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your "look squirrel" bloging style is very tiresome and impreses no one reading this comment thread. Please cease and desist posting coments of this nature.
-
thorconstr at 00:14 AM on 24 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
I pressume that a piece of ice supported by the side of a jar is not a good representation of floating ice. Antarctica and Greenland are not off topic because they represent ice that is supported as is the ice leaning on the side of the jar. This experiment is misleading. Can you comment without attacking?
-
jetfuel at 23:49 PM on 23 May 2014Animals and plants can adapt
From clarification in #36, A global warming of 2 deg C is a low range optimistic value and > 4 deg C of global warming by 2100 is a high range estimate. >4 is ~1 deg per 20 years. We are 14 years into the 21st century. What is the global temp increase from 2000 till now?
We are not on track 14 years into the 21st century. I question that the Earth's crust, atmosphere, and oceans as a heat sink could allow that much change in 100 years. I tried to see the annual fluctuation in Lake superior water temps but they only record surface temps, when avg depth is 183.2 meters.
Adapting has so far been to .7F in 60 years from 1942 to 2012. What animal, plant or human can't adapt to: NOAA sea level trends: Naples Fla shows 2.4 mm/yr; Daytona shows 2.32 mm/yr. A house in Jupiter, Fla at 14.5 feet above sea level is also 4419 mm above sea level. The recent trend along Fla coast will bring sea water to the Jupiter Fla house doorstep in 1841 years, assuming no changes in continental plate rise or fall over 1841 years. Sounding so many alarms and raising electric rates 50% in 6 years to fight this seems a bit overdone.
-
Composer99 at 23:49 PM on 23 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr:
You really should read through the papers hyperlinked in the OP before writing in a comment that appears to presume the simple experiment is the end of the matter - and ignoring the point made that the melting sea ice in salt water changes the salinity and temperature of the water, therefore changing its volume.
Your claims regarding Greenland and the Antarctic appear to be purely arguments from ignorance. They are also off-topic, so if you want to pursue them further (with references) please look up appropriate threads to do so.
-
thorconstr at 23:32 PM on 23 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
Floating ice (not a huge chunk leaning on the side of a jar) such as the polar ice cap, displaces the same amount of water as ice as it does as water, there is no change in level. Ice on land such as Antarctica and Greenland would affect sea level although given the land mass of Greenland the affect would be small and Antarctica with an average tempreature of -30 is not an issue. See the site below for a proper demonstration of melting ice and water level. See Archimedes principal as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOCqHRpQh88
-
ranyl at 22:11 PM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
"Your initial sentence sugests to me that it may not in fact be the intended initial sentence of your post. Either way, please clarify.
Therefore seems to imply the hotter we get the less carbon drawn down by biosphere."
Thanks yes, it should read more "that it seems from the excellent and interesting post that the warmer we get the less carbon is drawn down into the biosphere's sinks".
Not sure how to edit an old post for typos etc, so sorry.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank yuou for the clarification. Unfortunately, the SkS coments system does not curently provide commenters with the ability to edit posts. Until such time as an editing function is installed, commenters are more than welcome to post a revised/corrected edition of a previously posted comment.
-
Klapper at 21:31 PM on 23 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
@Chriskoz #41:
So far I've looked at the temperature trends in 3 different boxes, the first from NCDC, the second and third from CRUTEM4. The last box covered the Chengdu area based on input from Tom Curtis. All were above the CRUTEM4 global average for land temperature. I haven't found any evidence from these data that anthropogenic aerosols have a cooling effect on SAT.
It's possible that the cooling effect of aerosols is non-linear, i.e. cooling at lower intensities but less so at higher intensities, or that the Chinese mix is richer in soot vs sulphate, or that 30 year trends are too long to capture the recent Chinese surge in aerosols. On the latter point, regional SAT is very noisy and trends shorter than 30 years probably wouldn't be meaningful statistically.
All that being said, data from China over the last 30 years don't appear to support the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols represent a negative SAT forcing. That brings us back to the question at hand, whether increasing the leverage of anthropogenic aerosols to recalculate climate sensitivity is appropriate or not. If anything, data from the last 30 years in China would indicate that decreasing the leverage of anthropogenic aerosols to recalculate climate sensitivity should be the next experiment.
-
chriskoz at 18:53 PM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
Tom@5,
Thanks for that clarification. From the article, I wouldn't have guessed that "Last year" (and last point) on Figure 1 means "Year to April 2014".
While other points are perhaps year to Dec XXXX (where XXXX spans from 1959 till 2013) ? Where was that data taken from? Or maybe, in fact, the other points are taken from that NOAA table I've been referring to? Note that the table shows "The table shows annual mean carbon dioxide growth rates" which is different than "year to Dec XXXX". In the latter case the last point does not belong to the rest of the graph.
Pardon my quibble, but in order to be confident about the validity of article conclusions, I have to be confident that the data is accurate and not skewed/cherry picked. Especially if the article makes a big projection/speculation based on the last April 2014 point in the graph. If I was about to construct Figure 1, I would e.g. take 12 times more points, representing annual growth rate ending at each month from Dec 1959 till Apr 2014. Such 12-month running average would smooth the noise and my conclusion would be better supported by the actual trend of last several months rather than by a cherry picked point.
Having said the above, I of course do not deny that CO2 trend on Keeling Curve is exponential (the first derivative shown on figure 1, like the similar figure on NOAA page, is linear with good confidence).
-
ranyl at 18:04 PM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
Therefore seems to imply the hotter we get the less carbon drawn down by biosphere.
Do models represent that well?
Clearly CO2 has been introduced very quickly into the system so there si some lag before euqilibrium between the sinks for sure and thus theoretical if we stopped emitting CO2 the redistribution would lower CO2 in atmosphere. However we are going to still warm as still in radiative imbalance at these CO2 levels and the sinks do buffer 50% of the full release immediate;y, and natural drawn down takes millenia due to weathering, so where is the balance point, 75% drawn down and the reminaing 25% take eons what?
It is just that so many seem to actually beleive that if CO2 emissions stopped CO2 woudl fall rapidly and this seems not quite right for me, the buffer has already taken up 50% and keep in mind that Nitrogen fertilization has helped that quite alot (not in models often) and the sinks from this get less as we heat up and we aren't cooling any time soon due the inherent heat lags and a now the albedo drivers.
Also many of the sinks seem to be under threat, forest fires, permafrost, peat fires, droughts in Brazil, old tree die off and the warming ocean etc, etc...
And although emissions are increasing year on year, can't help feeling th esinks are waining in their effect.
This for implies that even stopping CO2 today CO2 will not fall that quickly and may even still rise, indeed in this study showed if climate sensititivity 4C, then goes up and let's face it recent evidence is in line with a CS of 4C, indeed even IPCC CS 4.5C or above is a 1:3 chance.
Who said we had a carbon budget???
Last time CO2 was 350ppm (and we aren't getting back to that unless we remove CO2 from the atmosphere somehow for at least 200-300 years even if stopped all emissions today), sea levels were 20-25m higher on average and temperature were 3-5C higher, although probably even higher considering the West Pacific warm pool was actually much hotter than prweviously thought and covers ~1/10th of the ocean.
What carbon budget??
Basically from the evidence shows we don't have a carbon budget we have a huge debt and if we don't repay it very soon by going carbon negative asap we won't be able to to adapt even.
Therefore isn't every ounce of carbon a huge gamble now?
Shouldn't the questions be how on earth are going toget to 350ppm by 2100, and even that means 2-3C warming by then if the 60-80% of the full warming proposed by Hansen is correct.
350ppm for millenia, earth 3-5C hotter, therefore 350ppm 100 years, we get 60-80% of that, so 1.8C to 2.4C being optimistic.
Anyway lets pretend and elts emit loads more carbon and think 450ppm is safe in some way!
And just how standard deviations shift of the mean is a 2C rise in temperature?
Looking at the bottom graph, excluding the last 30 years, it seems the range is 0.8C max arround the mean, implying a Standard deviation of ~0.4C.
That means 2C is a 5SD shift in mean.
That is equivalent to increasing the average height of man to 7'1", and means a 1/20 year warm year is 7SD from pre-industrial, and that means we are going very extreme in our weather does it not!
So 2C is well miore dangerous than policy makers have any clue of.
Therefore isn't the question now, how can we get carbon negative asap to give us any chance at all, becuase lets face, a 10SD shift in mean temperature (4C) means things so extreme we have no chance of avoiding human civilization choas.
So what doe sthat mean.
Well it means serioulsy thinking is that flight really worth such an outcome?
And as for solutions, scale is everything, and all renewables have extensive environmental imapcts that are just dismissed, like toxic waste, rare earth metals, etc,etc, and all becuase coal is worse or somethign else we do is worse, you wouldn't think the biosphere was on its kbneees becasue of toxic waste, land use etc....
And the sinks are declining and we have to stop using nitrogen fertilizers so they wilol reudce further.
When is this the scale of this problem going to stop it being abstract dinner party talk to oh shit, lets get on, rebuild the earth's ecosystem and stop using power asap, inhcluding the car!
Moderator Response:[JH] Your initial sentence sugests to me that it may not in fact be the intended initial sentence of your post. Either way, please clarify.
[RH] Adjusted image size.
-
denisaf at 17:48 PM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
The graphs show what is increasing. Money is intangible so the inrease in the amount is not constrained by natural forces. The population is naturally reproducable so long as the essential sustenance is available. However, the tangible infrastructure of civilization is dependent on the availability of the declining stock of natural resources as it ages. Figure 3 gives the rate of exploitation of some of the resources. It does not show what is left. That exploitation cannot possibly continue. That assertion is simple logic. So the trend in Figure 2 cannot possibly continue, despite all the anthropocentric argument. Ironically the world model in "Limits to Growth" was a simple illustration of that stark reality decades ago. Yet society ignored that lesson so the future for the expanded population is becoming more dire. A dieoff is certain while the infrastructure disintegrates. Human decisions can do no more that ease the inevitable powering down.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:29 PM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
chriskoz @4, NOAA shows a Mauna Loa CO2 concentration of 398.35 ppmv for April 2013, and 401.3 ppmv for April 2014. The difference is 2.95 ppmv as stated in the article. Unfortunately the link in the article is to the Global March figures, which show a difference of 2.56 ppmv. The figures you quote for annual means are for Jan-Dec 2012 and Jan - Dec 2013, shown in a graph for Mauna Loa further down the page to which I linked above. Unfortunately, the annual growth rates shown in the graph above appear to be for Global, year to Dec, annual figures. On that basis, the 2.56 ppmv for 2012-2013 is exceded by 1997-1998 (2.84 ppmv) and 1986-1987 (2.71 ppmv). Both were El Nino years, giving 2012-2013 the record for non- El Nino years, but not the overall record.
-
scaddenp at 13:54 PM on 23 May 2014Sea level rise due to floating ice?
thorconstr - read and abide the comments policy.
Moderator Response:[PS] Thorconstr - please carefully read the comment policy. Conformance in not optional. Note especially the section on sloganeering (making assertions without supporting evidence) and the prohibition on political statements. This a site to discuss science. There are plenty of other places for political rants.
-
chriskoz at 13:09 PM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
Last year the concentration of CO2 has risen by 2,95 ppm
That's a false statement. The source linked from NOAA directly contradicts that statement:
Annual Mean Global Carbon Dioxide Growth Rates table shows: "2013 2.48"
Mauna Loa Annual Mean Growth Rate table shows: "2013 2.05"
I guess 2,95 ppm in the article is a typo. Nufortunately followed by the erroneous interpretation of that typo: allegedly last year's growth was "the highest on record". In fact year 1998 has seen the higher rate of 2.84. Some studies explanains such unusually high 1998 growth was in part due to massive ElNino cooking and in other part due to massive indonesian forrest fires that year, that released as much as 5GtC (half of antropo emissions).
-
chriskoz at 12:45 PM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
Marcin,
I'm interested in more details of the "low-oxygen dead zones" in your figure 3. But it's hard to find more info/data in a general link you pointed. And the fact that the y-axis on figure 3 is nor quantified does not help. Can you provide more specific link with some detailed explanation what "low-oxygen dead zones" means, together with some data?
PS: Thanks for that article which broadens the issue of AGW and touches sustainability. I've been enjoying your blogs and discussions in Polish media where you're doing terrific job explaining the science...
-
Marcin Popkiewicz at 07:28 AM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
In the years after a major volcanic eruption (i.e. when there is an abundance of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere), heterotrophic respiration decreases due to a lowering of the Earth’s surface temperature and the productivity of ecosystems in forested area increases under enhanced diffuse radiation. Both processes lead to a negative anomaly in CO2 growth rate. See Wang 2013, Gu 2003, Frölicher 2013
-
jamesprescott at 04:42 AM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
Why do volcanoes reduce interannual CO2 rise?
-
jyyh at 03:09 AM on 23 May 2014Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
"Previous non-El Niño record was surpassed by 0.53 ppm, which (W)as also a record"
As strong el Ninos are not necessarily natural, it's no surprise nature has hard time adjusting to them.
-
John Hartz at 02:01 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
Everyone particpating in, or reading, this comment thread will want to check out Tom Engelhardt's new essay posted today on TomDispatch.com.
Engelhardt's essay is titled, The 95% Doctrine - Climate Change as a Weapon of Mass Destruction
It answers the question: Is Climate Change a Crime Against Humanity?
-
saileshrao at 00:44 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
Lionel A @ 14,
"Whilst one could blame the British for starting the exponential rise of CO2 through industrialization one should ask is such blame well placed. For much of the period humans were ignorant of the effects of rising greenhouse gas levels on the atmosphere at Earth's temperature."
The Law of Karma has been well-known in the East for several millennia. It is the specifics of the Earth's reaction to a particular depredation that we're now beginning to unravel through science.
The colonialists deliberately chose to deride every piece of wisdom that they found in the indigineous communities that they ruled by force. Therefore, the ignorance was wilful, not unwitting. -
saileshrao at 00:33 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
Glenn Tamblyn @16:
"Discovering that we have unwittingly caused harm and then continuing to do so is immoral."
Thank you for this statement. It explains why some people want to repudiate the science of climate change: it clashes with their moral being as they find it hard to accept their past "immorality", even if it was unwitting. This understandable denialism also explains why most climate scientists continue to eat animal foods, despite the overwhelming evidence of disappearing forests that satellite images have brought into plain view (see http://globalforestwatch.org ). -
Lionel A at 00:17 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
chriskoz
austrartsua has probaly the anthropic principle in mind.
-
Composer99 at 00:16 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
chriskoz, that's probably some form of the anthropic principle. Possibly a stronger variant thereof.
-
chriskoz at 00:06 AM on 23 May 2014Looking for connections
austrartsua@7,
Small changes in radiative forcing would lead to large swings in the systems temperature. Such a system would probably not be long-lived and certainly would be unlikely to support a bio-sphere for billions of years.[...] you can think of [...] a combination of the Gaia hypothesis and the anthropogenic principle
Note that your "large swings in the system temperature" is not a correct statement. The main negative feedback, not mentioned by anyone yet, not allowing such swings is the increased outgoing IR due to increased temperature. This feedback does ensure that once the planet reaches the radiative equilibrium, it will not warm anymore. Well it'll warm slightly due to slow positive Earth System fedbacks like carbon cycle (e.g. thawing permafrost). But the system as a whole cannot axperience any "large swings", because the omnipresent outgoing IR negative feedback will counteract all Earth System effects.
Your "Gaia hypothesis" can be viewed as a "spiritual take" of the theory of rock weathering, explained by scaddenp@10. However, I have no clue what your "anthropogenic principle" (?) is. I've never heard such term and am puzzled what you could have meant. Please explain.
-
chriskoz at 23:27 PM on 22 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Klapper@40,41
Despite my assertion @29 not to consider climate change in any chinese locality in isolation from the rest of the globe, you did precisely what I warned against (i.e. you "boxed" a convenient cherry area, where temperature trend supports your preconceived claim), therefore you've implicitly denied the validity of my assertion.
Maybe you should open your mind at this point, at the fact that climate change is not only about CO2 and aerosols forcings and cherries. Climate change is about variety of phenomenons, including but not limitted to athmospheric and ocean fluid dynamics, water vapour transport via winds and convection and associated rainfall patterns, etc.
Let's consider for example changes in rainfall over China in last 50y from the widely cited article: (Xu 2001). Xu found that due to the changes in heat equilibrium of the land surface (due to SO2 pollution), the summer monsoon belt has moved southward. How much? Check Xu's figure 4: Average latitudes of the central axis of monsoon rain belt in summer and mid-summer. I'm eyeballing that it moved by some 5 degrees since 1960, leading to an abnormal summer climate pattern of ‘‘north [your cherry Beijing] drought with south flooding’’ It does not take much imagination to conclude that in such situation of signifficant shift in precipitations, the temperature response will also vary. Specifically, we can expect the increase in temperature for the areas that became drier, because the rain cools things down in summer. And that's what Beijing may be experiencing: drier summers due to retreat of monsoon southwards.
This is only one example that I'm giving you, without even trying to quantify the issue because I don't have time and expertise for it. This is just to show that your method of "boxing" and isolating a cherry temperature trend is not how you should aproach the complex problem of climate change in China.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 21:26 PM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
Lionel
"one should ask is such blame well placed. For much of the period humans were ignorant of the effects of rising greenhouse gas levels on the atmosphere at Earth's temperature."
I agree. While in principal we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, there is a strong case to be made that our degree of responsibility is moderated/modulated hugely by how witting or unwitting we were when we took those actions.
Conversely, if we were unwitting and then gained understanding later, how we respond to that discovery is of paramount importance. Discovering that we have unwittingly caused harm is sad and disturbing.
Discovering that we have unwittingly caused harm and then continuing to do so is immoral.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 21:15 PM on 22 May 2014Looking for connections
austrartsua
"Suppose that the earth was highly sensitive to changes in radiative forcing of order 1C. Then the system would be unstable. Small changes in radiative forcing would lead to large swings in the systems temperature. Such a system would probably not be long-lived and certainly would be unlikely to support a bio-sphere for billions of years."
There is a fundamental fallacy in this argument which is easy to miss if we just talk about feedbacks in a purely mathematical way. That the feedbacks have a consistent magnitude. So a positive feedback is seen as being continuously positive no matter how much feedback is applied. Such an implicit idea can lead to the notion that if feedbacks are strong then a system must be unstable.
However in the real world many feedback, +ve or -ve, may be strong but of limited scope.
A good example of this is ice sheets. Warming will melt ice sheets, changing albedo and producing a potentially strong +ve feedback. Right up to the point where the ice sheets have completely melted. After that point there is no more ice to melt and ice sheet change provides no further feedback at all. Similarly cooling expands ice sheets in a +ve feedback. Until the position of continents, percentage of ocean at different latitudes etc limits further ice sheet growth.
So discussion of CS is really a discussion of CS relative to the current climate state. And there is no automatic argument that a higher CS in the current climate state (which is what we are interested in) implies a high CS in all climate states and thus an instability condition. Climate may better be described as a system that can fluctuate between several relatively stable states. Not stable. Not unstable. Metastable.
Unfortunately a transition to a new metastable state may not be good for our health.
Prev 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 Next
